Play at the plate

[Rich Ives]

Catcher obstructs the batter then maliciously contacts the runner coming home. Then what?

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Catcher obstructs the batter then maliciously contacts the runner coming home. Then what?

=
Rich: I like this play because it neatly proves what I've been saying.

The obstruction is NOT canceled by an offensive penalty. So, the poor defense is going to get [meat] axed.

The runner scores, the batter goes to first, the catcher is ejected. And, as I am wont to say, the umpire will restrict the assistant defensive coach.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

=
Rich: I like this play because it neatly proves what I've been saying.

The obstruction is NOT canceled by an offensive penalty. So, the poor defense is goig to get [meat] axed.

The runner score, the batter goes to first, the catcher is ejected. And, as I am wont to say, the umpire will restrict the assistant defensive coach.

Carl,

So now you're saying malicious contact does NOT always supersede obstruction?

JM

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Carl,

So now you're saying malicious contact does NOT always supersede obstruction?

JM

No, I'm saying what I said, JM.

Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction when each team violates.

Good lord, if what you're implying would be true, a catcher could maliciously tag the runner just to keep the batter off first.

Lah, me.

Adios, all!